This paper studies the differences and determinants of handwashing practices in India and identifies sections of the population with poor handwashing practices who are relatively more vulnerable during the COVID-19 pandemic. We have used the data from the recent National Sample Survey (NSS, 76th round) for India (2018). Bivariate and logistic regression analyses have been performed to predict the determinants of handwashing practices across states and socio-economic groups. Levels of education of the household head, Usual Monthly Per Capita Expenditure (UMPCE) of the household, access to water (other than drinking water) resources and sanitation facilities, and the availability of water with soap in and around latrines are major socio-economic and demographic factors that impact handwashing practices. Higher access to principal sources of water for drinking and other purposes, access to bathrooms and latrines with soap, and the availability of water in or around latrines increase the likelihood of handwashing among the people. Universal handwashing across different sections of the population will be effective to prevent further infection. The available data help us to identify the vulnerable sections of the population which are towards the lower end of the handwashing compliance spectrum. The policymakers can outline specific planning and strategy implementation for them.

  • The National Sample Survey is a recent assessment of sanitation and hand-hygiene practices in India.

  • It gives a regional- as well as community-level picture of handwashing practices.

  • It provides a detailed account of the determinants of hand-hygiene practices.

  • This survey is relevant in the current situation of the COVID-19 pandemic.

  • It fulfils the gaps in the research of access to water resources and related hand-hygiene practices.

Hands play a major role in the spread of infections (Teare 1999; Aiello & Larson 2002; Curtis & Cairncross 2003). Handwashing is a simple personal hygiene measure that has historically proved to be effective in reducing the transmission of infections (Larson 1988; Coignard et al. 1998). It is also a cost-effective strategy to reduce the pressure on the health system across the country and reduce the global burden of diseases (Hirai et al. 2016). Handwashing with soap at critical moments, such as prior to meals and post defaecation, can effectively prevent infectious diseases by interrupting the transmission of infectious agents (Hirai et al. 2016). An integrated approach, including improvements in personal hygiene with a simultaneous development of public health infrastructure, can effectively control infections (Esrey & Habicht 1986; Esrey et al. 1991; Curtis Cairncross & Yonli 2000; Aiello & Larson 2002).

Inadequate handwashing post defaecation and anal cleaning practices are common in the Indian subcontinent and are a major source of faeco-oral transmission of enteric diseases (Hoque et al. 1995; Hoque 2003). Improvement in water and sanitation facilities has proved to have reduced infections (Esrey & Habicht 1986; Esrey et al. 1991). The World Health Organization (WHO) has advised frequent handwashing with water and soap (among several others) as an effective preventive measure against COVID-19. However, like other hygiene practices, handwashing is highly influenced by individual behaviour and usually has biological and social origins (Deodhar 2003). Even during crucial moments such as post defaecation and before meals, handwashing behaviour varies widely across different social and economic groups of the population. Therefore, if handwashing compliance is to be ensured to prevent infections, it is important to delve into the complex set of factors that influence it – the most important being accessibility to basic facilities required for handwashing compliance. Hand-sanitizing gels and alcohol-based hand rubs are effective alternatives to handwashing with water and soap except when hands are visibly soiled (Widmer 2000) but are not accessible universally. In this paper, an attempt has been made to study the differential handwashing behaviour across social and economic groups of the population in two instances – prior to meals and post defaecation. Since these two instances are crucial ones, it can give a picture of the general anticipated handwashing behaviour and help to identify the vulnerable sections of the population.

Objectives

This paper attempts to study the differential handwashing practices and their determinants in India and identify the sections of the population that are less compliant with handwashing practices. This will be helpful to outline some public health planning and strategies that can be implemented to facilitate handwashing practices among these sections of the population to prevent the spread of infections.

Data source

Data from the 76th round of National Sample Survey (NSS) (Schedule 1.2) in India have been used, which include information on the issues of drinking water, sanitation, hygiene and housing conditions. It is a nationally representative multistage stratified sample survey of households, wherein the total number of households surveyed was 106,838 (63,736 in rural areas and 43,102 in urban areas).

Outcome variables

Two questions related to handwashing practices were asked during the survey: ‘(i) whether household members regularly wash their hands before meals?’ and ‘(ii) whether household members regularly wash their hands after defaecation?’ A set of four options were available to choose from: if household members wash their hands ‘with water and soap/detergent – 1; with water and ash/mud/sand, etc. – 2; with water only – 3; no – 4’. All these responses have been recoded into a binary variable, i.e. ‘with water and soap/detergent – 1 and all others – 0’, as only handwashing with water and soap/detergent is effective against COVID-19 among the four categories of responses.

Figure 1

Percentage of population who wash hands prior to meals in India, 2018 (data source: NSS 76th round, Schedule 1.2).

Figure 1

Percentage of population who wash hands prior to meals in India, 2018 (data source: NSS 76th round, Schedule 1.2).

Close modal
Figure 2

Percentage of population who wash hands post defaecation in India, 2018 (data source: NSS 76th round, Schedule 1.2).

Figure 2

Percentage of population who wash hands post defaecation in India, 2018 (data source: NSS 76th round, Schedule 1.2).

Close modal

Explanatory variables

Various regional, demographic and socio-economic determinants of handwashing have been considered. In addition, access to water resources, the availability of sanitation facilities and institutional factors have also been considered. The place of residence and Empowered Action Group (EAG)1 status of the states have been considered to examine the regional effects. Main demographic and socio-economic variables are the size of the family, highest education level of household head, Usual Monthly Per Capita Expenditure (UMPCE) of the household, caste and religion. Variables of access to water resources and sanitation include the availability of water in or around latrines used, access to the principal sources of drinking water and other water and access to bathroom and latrine at the household or community level. Benefits obtained from the government scheme on drinking water and sanitation are considered as an institutional factor. The detailed categories of independent variables and sample characteristics are given in Table 1.

Table 1

Sample characteristics

Background variablesCategoriesNPercent
Place of residence Rural 63,736 59.66 
Urban 43,101 40.34 
EAG status EAG states 39,909 37.36 
Non-EAG states 66,928 62.64 
Family size Small (up to three) 35,514 33.24 
Medium (four to six) 58,021 54.31 
Large (more than six) 13,302 12.45 
Levels of education of the household head (HH) Illiterate 26,512 24.82 
Literate without formal schooling 998 0.93 
Below primary and primary 22,769 21.31 
Upper primary 17,272 16.17 
Secondary 16,223 15.18 
Higher secondary and above 23,063 21.59 
Social group Scheduled tribe (ST) 14,767 13.82 
Scheduled caste (SC) 18,157 17 
Other backward class (OBC) 43,640 40.85 
Others 30,273 28.34 
Religious group Muslim 13,789 12.91 
Hindu 81,825 76.59 
Christians 6,338 5.93 
Others 4,885 4.57 
Usual monthly per capita expenditure Poorest 15,803 14.79 
Poor 17,549 16.43 
Middle 20,528 19.21 
Rich 23,868 22.34 
Richest 29,089 27.23 
Access to the principal source of drinking water Community 24,762 23.18 
Neighbours source 3,508 3.28 
Common use of HHs in building 11,823 11.07 
HHs exclusive 58,001 54.29 
Others 8,743 8.18 
Principal source of drinking water for all household activities Bottle/piped in HH 32,298 30.23 
Piped in plot/neighbour 14,772 13.83 
Public tap/stand pipe 9,593 8.98 
Hand pump/tube well 39,361 36.84 
Well 7,002 6.55 
Others 3,811 3.57 
Principal source of water for all household activities excluding drinking Bottle/piped in HH 30,659 28.7 
Piped in plot/neighbour 12,774 11.96 
Public tap/pipe 7,717 7.22 
Hand pump/tube well 39,565 37.03 
Well 7,471 6.99 
Others 8,651 8.1 
Access of the household to bathroom No bathroom 30,324 28.38 
Own 66,354 62.11 
Common 9,707 9.09 
Public/community with or without payment 452 0.42 
Access of the household to latrine No latrine 17,771 16.63 
Own 77,159 72.22 
Common 10,108 9.46 
Others 1,799 1.68 
Availability of water in or around the latrine used Not available 3,073 2.88 
Water/water with mud, etc. 18,221 17.05 
Water with soap/detergent 67,030 62.74 
Benefits received by the household from government schemes for drinking water during last 3 years Received 1,759 1.65 
Not received 1,556 1.46 
Don't know 1,03,522 96.90 
Benefits received by the household from government schemes for sanitation during last 3 years Received 12,436 11.64 
Not received 2,161 2.02 
Don't know 92,240 86.34 
Background variablesCategoriesNPercent
Place of residence Rural 63,736 59.66 
Urban 43,101 40.34 
EAG status EAG states 39,909 37.36 
Non-EAG states 66,928 62.64 
Family size Small (up to three) 35,514 33.24 
Medium (four to six) 58,021 54.31 
Large (more than six) 13,302 12.45 
Levels of education of the household head (HH) Illiterate 26,512 24.82 
Literate without formal schooling 998 0.93 
Below primary and primary 22,769 21.31 
Upper primary 17,272 16.17 
Secondary 16,223 15.18 
Higher secondary and above 23,063 21.59 
Social group Scheduled tribe (ST) 14,767 13.82 
Scheduled caste (SC) 18,157 17 
Other backward class (OBC) 43,640 40.85 
Others 30,273 28.34 
Religious group Muslim 13,789 12.91 
Hindu 81,825 76.59 
Christians 6,338 5.93 
Others 4,885 4.57 
Usual monthly per capita expenditure Poorest 15,803 14.79 
Poor 17,549 16.43 
Middle 20,528 19.21 
Rich 23,868 22.34 
Richest 29,089 27.23 
Access to the principal source of drinking water Community 24,762 23.18 
Neighbours source 3,508 3.28 
Common use of HHs in building 11,823 11.07 
HHs exclusive 58,001 54.29 
Others 8,743 8.18 
Principal source of drinking water for all household activities Bottle/piped in HH 32,298 30.23 
Piped in plot/neighbour 14,772 13.83 
Public tap/stand pipe 9,593 8.98 
Hand pump/tube well 39,361 36.84 
Well 7,002 6.55 
Others 3,811 3.57 
Principal source of water for all household activities excluding drinking Bottle/piped in HH 30,659 28.7 
Piped in plot/neighbour 12,774 11.96 
Public tap/pipe 7,717 7.22 
Hand pump/tube well 39,565 37.03 
Well 7,471 6.99 
Others 8,651 8.1 
Access of the household to bathroom No bathroom 30,324 28.38 
Own 66,354 62.11 
Common 9,707 9.09 
Public/community with or without payment 452 0.42 
Access of the household to latrine No latrine 17,771 16.63 
Own 77,159 72.22 
Common 10,108 9.46 
Others 1,799 1.68 
Availability of water in or around the latrine used Not available 3,073 2.88 
Water/water with mud, etc. 18,221 17.05 
Water with soap/detergent 67,030 62.74 
Benefits received by the household from government schemes for drinking water during last 3 years Received 1,759 1.65 
Not received 1,556 1.46 
Don't know 1,03,522 96.90 
Benefits received by the household from government schemes for sanitation during last 3 years Received 12,436 11.64 
Not received 2,161 2.02 
Don't know 92,240 86.34 

Estimated from NSS 76th Round, Schedule 1.2.

Statistical analysis

Chi-square test and bivariate and multivariate statistical tools have been applied in this study using the STATA-14 statistical software. The relationship between the dependent variables (hand washing before meals and after defaecation) and independent socio-economic and demographic variables has been examined using the Chi-square test. Two separate logistic regression models are executed to examine the impacts of various determinants of handwashing before meals and after defaecation.

Regional variation in handwashing practices

Handwashing practices in two critical moments – before meals and after defaecation – are shown in Table 2 across rural and urban areas in each state. It is observed that on an average, about 35% of people wash their hands with soap/detergent and water before meals. While only 25% of people in rural areas wash hands with soap/detergent and water before meals, the same figure in urban areas is 56%. Union territories record the highest (70%), followed by non-EAG states (43%) and north eastern states (42%), and the lowest is recorded in the EAG states (23%). Variation in handwashing practices before meals across states is shown in Figure 1.

Table 2

Regional variation in handwashing across India, 2018

State/UTsWhether household members regularly wash their hands with water and soap/detergent before meal?
Whether household members regularly wash their hands with water and soap/detergent after defaecation?
No. of sample households
RuralUrbanTotalRuralUrbanTotal
Non-EAG others Jammu and Kashmir 46.21 60.06 49.63 72.58 90.74 77.06 1,714 
Himachal Pradesh 87.6 77.56 86.24 97.61 99.23 97.83 947 
Punjab 74.36 81.85 77.53 96.33 99.36 97.61 2,361 
Haryana 56.07 76.77 64.02 87.22 95.82 90.53 2,145 
Assam 28.2 44.72 30.7 69.41 94.3 73.18 3,600 
West Bengal 18.57 47.72 28.3 70.28 93.24 77.95 7,789 
Gujarat 32.62 60.71 46.35 73.42 89.51 81.28 4,840 
Maharashtra 42.92 73.2 56.51 75.59 96.59 85.02 9,298 
Andhra Pradesh 25.84 51.79 34.61 44.31 72.95 53.99 3,863 
Karnataka 35.11 67.28 49.53 57.4 83.82 69.25 4,895 
Goa 30.69 69.88 55.09 98.06 100 99.27 239 
Kerala 51.57 56.04 53.76 82.76 93.11 87.83 3,383 
Tamil Nadu 13.19 41.27 27.35 30.74 61.51 46.26 6,108 
Telangana 28.9 52.47 39.89 61.31 86.77 73.18 2,949 
Total 33.04 58.34 43.46 65.09 85.54 73.51 54,131 
EAG Uttarakhand 32.91 71.4 44.01 89.03 99.26 91.98 984 
Rajasthan 19.66 53.37 28.67 64.92 93.27 72.49 5,240 
Uttar Pradesh 16.87 44.78 23.79 75.6 96.15 80.69 12,423 
Bihar 12.22 30.81 14.29 66.65 90.99 69.36 6,993 
Jharkhand 3.28 32.84 10.56 50.56 86.53 59.41 2,565 
Odisha 9.22 42.16 15.11 46.34 83.42 52.96 3,671 
Chhattisgarh 33.27 56.87 38.14 84.07 98.23 86.99 2,125 
Madhya Pradesh 26.64 57.41 35.24 74.95 95.81 80.78 5,908 
Total 17.04 47.14 23.73 68.8 93.79 74.35 39,909 
Non-EAG North Eastern States Sikkim 85.38 90.56 87.05 100 98.53 99.53 816 
Arunachal Pradesh 50.38 69.05 54.82 75.2 92.7 79.37 1,143 
Nagaland 32.17 55.08 39.25 45.28 68.85 52.56 912 
Manipur 40.69 54.72 45.29 44.86 61.37 50.28 2,242 
Mizoram 36.22 59.48 47.53 43 75.36 58.74 1,200 
Tripura 28.06 44.04 31.78 62.18 82.09 66.82 2,256 
Meghalaya 31.94 60.74 37.53 48.57 75.01 53.71 1,292 
Total 36.72 56.82 42.23 56.38 75.75 61.69 9,861 
Union Territories Chandigarh 100 79.96 80.97 100 97.27 97.41 192 
Delhi 55.97 73.92 73.5 99.67 97.51 97.56 1,616 
Daman and Diu 23.39 5.85 7.97 95.44 97.24 97.03 192 
Dadra and Nagar Haveli 12.98 36.22 27.98 69.51 90.62 83.14 192 
Ladakh 73.9 34.24 38.42 95.16 97.03 96.84 144 
Puducherry 59.61 78.58 70.78 59.61 87.06 75.78 360 
Andaman and Nicobar Islands 14.55 82.17 53.1 95.96 99.04 97.72 240 
Total 47.24 72.32 70.72 80.37 97.02 95.95 2,936 
India Total 25.31 56.05 35.82 66.81 88.26 74.15 1,06,837 
State/UTsWhether household members regularly wash their hands with water and soap/detergent before meal?
Whether household members regularly wash their hands with water and soap/detergent after defaecation?
No. of sample households
RuralUrbanTotalRuralUrbanTotal
Non-EAG others Jammu and Kashmir 46.21 60.06 49.63 72.58 90.74 77.06 1,714 
Himachal Pradesh 87.6 77.56 86.24 97.61 99.23 97.83 947 
Punjab 74.36 81.85 77.53 96.33 99.36 97.61 2,361 
Haryana 56.07 76.77 64.02 87.22 95.82 90.53 2,145 
Assam 28.2 44.72 30.7 69.41 94.3 73.18 3,600 
West Bengal 18.57 47.72 28.3 70.28 93.24 77.95 7,789 
Gujarat 32.62 60.71 46.35 73.42 89.51 81.28 4,840 
Maharashtra 42.92 73.2 56.51 75.59 96.59 85.02 9,298 
Andhra Pradesh 25.84 51.79 34.61 44.31 72.95 53.99 3,863 
Karnataka 35.11 67.28 49.53 57.4 83.82 69.25 4,895 
Goa 30.69 69.88 55.09 98.06 100 99.27 239 
Kerala 51.57 56.04 53.76 82.76 93.11 87.83 3,383 
Tamil Nadu 13.19 41.27 27.35 30.74 61.51 46.26 6,108 
Telangana 28.9 52.47 39.89 61.31 86.77 73.18 2,949 
Total 33.04 58.34 43.46 65.09 85.54 73.51 54,131 
EAG Uttarakhand 32.91 71.4 44.01 89.03 99.26 91.98 984 
Rajasthan 19.66 53.37 28.67 64.92 93.27 72.49 5,240 
Uttar Pradesh 16.87 44.78 23.79 75.6 96.15 80.69 12,423 
Bihar 12.22 30.81 14.29 66.65 90.99 69.36 6,993 
Jharkhand 3.28 32.84 10.56 50.56 86.53 59.41 2,565 
Odisha 9.22 42.16 15.11 46.34 83.42 52.96 3,671 
Chhattisgarh 33.27 56.87 38.14 84.07 98.23 86.99 2,125 
Madhya Pradesh 26.64 57.41 35.24 74.95 95.81 80.78 5,908 
Total 17.04 47.14 23.73 68.8 93.79 74.35 39,909 
Non-EAG North Eastern States Sikkim 85.38 90.56 87.05 100 98.53 99.53 816 
Arunachal Pradesh 50.38 69.05 54.82 75.2 92.7 79.37 1,143 
Nagaland 32.17 55.08 39.25 45.28 68.85 52.56 912 
Manipur 40.69 54.72 45.29 44.86 61.37 50.28 2,242 
Mizoram 36.22 59.48 47.53 43 75.36 58.74 1,200 
Tripura 28.06 44.04 31.78 62.18 82.09 66.82 2,256 
Meghalaya 31.94 60.74 37.53 48.57 75.01 53.71 1,292 
Total 36.72 56.82 42.23 56.38 75.75 61.69 9,861 
Union Territories Chandigarh 100 79.96 80.97 100 97.27 97.41 192 
Delhi 55.97 73.92 73.5 99.67 97.51 97.56 1,616 
Daman and Diu 23.39 5.85 7.97 95.44 97.24 97.03 192 
Dadra and Nagar Haveli 12.98 36.22 27.98 69.51 90.62 83.14 192 
Ladakh 73.9 34.24 38.42 95.16 97.03 96.84 144 
Puducherry 59.61 78.58 70.78 59.61 87.06 75.78 360 
Andaman and Nicobar Islands 14.55 82.17 53.1 95.96 99.04 97.72 240 
Total 47.24 72.32 70.72 80.37 97.02 95.95 2,936 
India Total 25.31 56.05 35.82 66.81 88.26 74.15 1,06,837 

Estimated by the author from NSSO 76th Round.

On the other hand, it is seen that about 74% of people wash their hands with soap/detergent and water post defaecation. While only 67% of people in rural areas wash hands with soap/detergent and water post defaecation, the same figure in urban areas is 88%. The highest percentage is observed in union territories (96%), followed by EAG states (74%) and non-EAG states (73%), and the lowest is recorded in north eastern states (62%). Rural areas in Chandigarh and urban areas in Goa record 100% of people washing hands post defaecation. Variation in handwashing practices after defecation across states is shown in Figure 2.

Relation between handwashing and socio-economic and demographic characteristics

Table 3 reveals the association of handwashing practices with socio-economic and demographic characteristics of the households. People who wash hands prior to meals are comparatively high in the urban areas (55.28%, P<0.001) compared to rural areas (24.96%, P<0.001). Handwashing prior to meals is highest in small families (38.70%, P<0.001), and post defaecation is highest in large families (76.25%, P<0.001). People who wash hands prior to meals and post defaecation are comparatively high among those with education at higher secondary and above (55.90 and 89.36%, respectively, P<0.001). The rate of handwashing prior to meals and post defaecation is satisfactorily high (49.04 and 86.71%, respectively, P<0.001) among the non-scheduled and backward social group. Handwashing before meals is lowest among Muslims (32.35%, P<0.001) and after defaecation among Christians (67%, P<0.001). There is a significantly progressive association observed between both outcome variables and the increasing wealth status of the household (P<0.001). Non-EAG states have a higher percentage of population washing hands prior to meals (44.11%, P<0.001). The highest tendency of handwashing in both cases is observed among households who used bottled/piped water as principal sources of household activities excluding drinking (57.55 and 88.64%, respectively, P<0.001). A similar pattern was observed in the case of principal source of water for all household activities (56.65 and 87.02%, respectively, P<0.001). It must be noted that bottled water is packaged drinking water that meets certain safety standards and is therefore considered safe for drinking; piped water is provided by corporation, municipality, panchayat or other local authorities and can also be considered safe (Government of India 2018). The highest percentage of handwashing before meals is observed among households that possess their own bathrooms (45.67, P<0.001) and latrines (41.2, P<0.001). The percentage of handwashing in both cases is higher where water is available in or around the latrine used (48.91 and 94.04%, respectively, P<0.001). Households that received benefits from government schemes for drinking water have a higher percentage of people washing hands in both situations (36.12 and 77.57%, respectively, P<0.001). On the other hand, households that do not receive benefits from government schemes for sanitation have a higher percentage of people washing hands before meals (27.29%, P<0.001), while the percentage of people washing hands after defaecation is the same for those who have received (73.21%, P<0.001) benefits from government schemes and those who have not (73.86%, P<0.001).

Table 3

Bivariate statistics for the association between handwashing before meals and after defaecation with different background variables

Background variablesCategoriesWashing hands with water and soap/detergent
Before meal
After defaecation
PercentageP-valuePercentageP-value
Place of residence Rural 24.96 0.001 68.35 0.001 
Urban 55.28 89.19 
Empowered Action Group EAG states 22.75 0.001 74.66 0.001 
Non-EAG states 44.11 74.82 
Family size Small (up to three) 38.70 0.001 73.25 0.001 
Medium (four to six) 34.69 74.6 
Large (more than six) 29.77 76.25 
Levels of education of HH Illiterate 22.20 0.001 64.87 0.001 
Literate without formal schooling 29.70 73.29 
Below primary and primary 29.27 71.02 
Upper primary 31.82 76.15 
Secondary 43.11 81.47 
Higher secondary and above 55.90 89.36 
Social group Scheduled tribe (ST) 22.8 0.001 57.8 0.001 
Scheduled caste (SC) 26.18 67.12 
Other backward class (OBC) 31.42 74.55 
Others 49.04 86.71 
Religious group Muslim 32.35  80.71 0.001 
Hindu 33.49  73.4 
Christians 40.00  67 
Others 56.41  86.66 
Usual Monthly Per Capita Expenditure Poorest 22.08 0.001 63.56 0.001 
Poor 25.71 68.19 
Middle 30.12 72.49 
Rich 38.48 79.46 
Richest 55.37 90.41 
Access to the principal source of drinking water Community 18.65 0.001 59.19 0.001 
Neighbours source 21.52 63.26 
Common use of HHs in building 34.19 77.95 
HH exclusive 40.85 82.05 
Others 44.35 73.63 
Principal source of drinking water for all households Bottle/piped in HH 56.65 0.001 87.02 0.001 
Piped in plot/neighbour 38.59 74.11 
Public tap/stand pipe 23.49 56.51 
Hand pump/tube well 21.91 71.94 
Well 33.69 70.76 
Other sources 29.67 65.37 
Principal source of drinking water for all household activities excluding drinking Bottle/piped in HH 57.55 0.001 88.64 0.001 
Piped in plot/neighbour 35.09 72.75 
Public tap/stand pipe 24.07 53.08 
Hand pump/tube well 24.81 73.75 
Well 34.09 71.85 
Other sources 18.2 56.47 
Access of the household to bathroom No bathroom 12.45 0.001 58.65 0.001 
Own 45.67 82.74 
Common 39.74 82.76 
Public/community with or without payment 23.12 66.14 
Access of the household to latrine No latrine 11.18 0.001 47.02 0.001 
Own 41.2 82.21 
Common 33.19 82.1 
Others 39.85 81.06 
Availability of water in or around the latrine used Not available 19.78 0.001 72.12 0.001 
Water/water with mud, etc. 12.85 40.22 
Water with soap/detergent 48.91 94.04 
Benefits received by the household from government schemes for sanitation Not received 27.29 0.001 73.86 0.001 
Received 20.45 73.21 
Benefits received by the household from government schemes for drinking water Not received 31.68 0.001 74.66 0.001 
Received 36.12 77.57 
Background variablesCategoriesWashing hands with water and soap/detergent
Before meal
After defaecation
PercentageP-valuePercentageP-value
Place of residence Rural 24.96 0.001 68.35 0.001 
Urban 55.28 89.19 
Empowered Action Group EAG states 22.75 0.001 74.66 0.001 
Non-EAG states 44.11 74.82 
Family size Small (up to three) 38.70 0.001 73.25 0.001 
Medium (four to six) 34.69 74.6 
Large (more than six) 29.77 76.25 
Levels of education of HH Illiterate 22.20 0.001 64.87 0.001 
Literate without formal schooling 29.70 73.29 
Below primary and primary 29.27 71.02 
Upper primary 31.82 76.15 
Secondary 43.11 81.47 
Higher secondary and above 55.90 89.36 
Social group Scheduled tribe (ST) 22.8 0.001 57.8 0.001 
Scheduled caste (SC) 26.18 67.12 
Other backward class (OBC) 31.42 74.55 
Others 49.04 86.71 
Religious group Muslim 32.35  80.71 0.001 
Hindu 33.49  73.4 
Christians 40.00  67 
Others 56.41  86.66 
Usual Monthly Per Capita Expenditure Poorest 22.08 0.001 63.56 0.001 
Poor 25.71 68.19 
Middle 30.12 72.49 
Rich 38.48 79.46 
Richest 55.37 90.41 
Access to the principal source of drinking water Community 18.65 0.001 59.19 0.001 
Neighbours source 21.52 63.26 
Common use of HHs in building 34.19 77.95 
HH exclusive 40.85 82.05 
Others 44.35 73.63 
Principal source of drinking water for all households Bottle/piped in HH 56.65 0.001 87.02 0.001 
Piped in plot/neighbour 38.59 74.11 
Public tap/stand pipe 23.49 56.51 
Hand pump/tube well 21.91 71.94 
Well 33.69 70.76 
Other sources 29.67 65.37 
Principal source of drinking water for all household activities excluding drinking Bottle/piped in HH 57.55 0.001 88.64 0.001 
Piped in plot/neighbour 35.09 72.75 
Public tap/stand pipe 24.07 53.08 
Hand pump/tube well 24.81 73.75 
Well 34.09 71.85 
Other sources 18.2 56.47 
Access of the household to bathroom No bathroom 12.45 0.001 58.65 0.001 
Own 45.67 82.74 
Common 39.74 82.76 
Public/community with or without payment 23.12 66.14 
Access of the household to latrine No latrine 11.18 0.001 47.02 0.001 
Own 41.2 82.21 
Common 33.19 82.1 
Others 39.85 81.06 
Availability of water in or around the latrine used Not available 19.78 0.001 72.12 0.001 
Water/water with mud, etc. 12.85 40.22 
Water with soap/detergent 48.91 94.04 
Benefits received by the household from government schemes for sanitation Not received 27.29 0.001 73.86 0.001 
Received 20.45 73.21 
Benefits received by the household from government schemes for drinking water Not received 31.68 0.001 74.66 0.001 
Received 36.12 77.57 

Estimated by the author from NSSO 76th Round, Schedule 1.20.

Note: P-values at a 95% confidence interval, P-values < = 0.05 is considered as the significance level.

Factors associated with handwashing with soap/detergent and water prior to meals

Table 4 presents the regression models predicting handwashing with soap/detergent and water prior to meals. Several factors determine whether a person uses soap/detergent and water for washing his or her hands before having meals. Significant predictors include the place of residence, levels of education of a household head, state-/region-specific characteristics, social group, religion, monthly per capita expenditure, family size, benefits received by the household from the government on schemes for drinking water, access to the principal source of drinking water, the principal source of water for all household activities excluding drinking water, access of the household to bathroom, the availability of water in or around the latrine used and whether the household has benefitted from government schemes related to drinking water.

Table 4

Factors associated with handwashing with soap/detergent and water prior to meals

Background characteristicsCategoriesHandwashing before meal
Unadjusted odds ratio (UOR)P-valuesAORP-values
Odds ratio (95% CI)P>zOdds ratio (95% CI)P>z
Place of residence Rural Reference  Reference 
Urban 3.14 (3.06–3.22) 0.001 1.40 (1.35–1.45) 0.001 
Empowered Action Group EAG states Reference  Reference 
Non-EAG states 2.54 (2.47–2.61) 0.001 2.04 (1.97–2.11) 0.001 
Family size Large (above six) Reference  Reference 
Small (up to three) 1.36 (1.3–1.42) 0.001 0.86 (0.81–0.9) 0.001 
Medium (four to six) 1.22 (1.17–1.27) 0.001 0.93 (0.89–0.97) 0.002 
Levels of education of the HH head Illiterate Reference  Reference 
Literate without formal schooling 1.47 (1.28–1.69) 0.001 1.09 (0.94–1.27) 0.268 
Below primary and primary 1.46 (1.4–1.52) 0.001 1.10 (1.05–1.15) 0.001 
Upper primary 1.76 (1.68–1.83) 0.001 1.20 (1.14–1.26) 0.001 
Secondary 2.74 (2.63–2.86) 0.001 1.38 (1.32–1.45) 0.001 
Higher secondary and above 4.45 (4.28–4.62) 0.001 1.70 (1.62–1.78) 0.001 
Social group Scheduled caste (SC) Reference  Reference 
Scheduled tribe (ST) 1.21 (1.15–1.27) 0.001 1.16 (1.09–1.23) 0.001 
Other backward class (OBC) 1.31 (1.26–1.36) 0.001 1.07 (1.02–1.12) 0.003 
Others 2.55 (2.45–2.65) 0.001 1.31 (1.25–1.37) 0.001 
Religious group Muslim Reference  Reference 
Hindu 1.14 (1.1–1.18) 0.001 1.28 (1.22–1.34) 0.001 
Christians 1.49 (1.4–1.58) 0.001 1.39 (1.28–1.5) 0.001 
Others 2.68 (2.51–2.87) 0.001 2.17 (2.01–2.35) 0.001 
Usual Monthly Per Capita Expenditure Poorest Reference  Reference 
Poor 1.22 (1.17–1.28) 0.001 1.07 (1.01–1.13) 0.013 
Middle 1.46 (1.39–1.53) 0.001 1.13 (1.08–1.2) 0.001 
Rich 2.01 (1.92–2.1) 0.001 1.18 (1.12–1.25) 0.001 
Richest 3.57 (3.42–3.72) 0.001 1.4 (1.32–1.48) 0.001 
Access to the principal source of drinking water Community Reference  Reference 
Neighbours source 1.2 (1.1–1.3) 0.001 1.07 (0.97–1.18) 0.169 
Common use of HHs in building 2.32 (2.21–2.44) 0.001 1.14 (1.06–1.22) 0.001 
Exclusive use of HH 3.25 (3.14–3.36) 0.001 1.13 (1.07–1.19) 0.001 
Others 3.21 (3.04–3.38) 0.001 0.90 (0.84–0.97) 0.008 
Principal source of drinking water for household Public tap/stand pipe Reference  Reference 
Bottle and piped water into dwelling 4.44 (4.22–4.68) 0.001 1.50 (1.36–1.65) 0.001 
Piped water in plot and from neighbour 2.18 (2.06–2.31) 0.001 1.30 (1.17–1.44) 0.001 
Tube well/hand pump 1.01 (0.95–1.06) 0.842 1.10 (1.01–1.2) 0.028 
Well: protected and unprotected 1.85 (1.73–1.98) 0.001 1.40 (1.24–1.59) 0.001 
Other sourcesa 1.89 (1.75–2.05) 0.001 2.01 (1.78–2.28) 0.001 
Principal source of water for all household activities excluding drinking Public tap/stand pipe Reference  Reference 
Bottle and piped water into dwelling 4.42 (4.18–4.68) 0.001 1.34 (1.23–1.47) 0.001 
Piped water in plot and from neighbour 1.93 (1.82–2.06) 0.001 1.02 (0.92–1.12) 0.736 
Tube well/hand pump 1.13 (1.07–1.19) 0.001 1.02 (0.94–1.12) 0.608 
Well: protected and unprotected 1.79 (1.67–1.91) 0.001 1.00 (0.89–1.12) 0.997 
Other sourcesa 0.99 (0.92–1.06) 0.715 0.88 (0.8–0.97) 0.011 
Access of the household to bathroom No bathroom Reference  Reference 
Exclusive use of HH 5.74 (5.54–5.95) 0.001 1.83 (1.75–1.91) 0.001 
Common use of HHs in building 4.51 (4.28–4.75) 0.001 1.69 (1.59–1.8) 0.001 
Public/community use with or without payment and others 2.34 (1.9–2.88) 0.001 1.48 (1.18–1.86) 0.001 
Availability of water in or around the latrine used Not available Reference  Reference 
Water/water with mud, etc. 0.75 (0.68–0.83) 0.001 0.49 (0.44–0.54) 0.001 
Water with soap/detergent 4.55 (4.16–4.98) 0.001 2.41 (2.18–2.65) 0.001 
Whether received any benefits from government scheme during last 3 years (related to drinking water) Not received Reference  Reference 
Received 1.46 (1.27–1.67) 0.001 1.57 (1.34–1.83) 0.001 
Background characteristicsCategoriesHandwashing before meal
Unadjusted odds ratio (UOR)P-valuesAORP-values
Odds ratio (95% CI)P>zOdds ratio (95% CI)P>z
Place of residence Rural Reference  Reference 
Urban 3.14 (3.06–3.22) 0.001 1.40 (1.35–1.45) 0.001 
Empowered Action Group EAG states Reference  Reference 
Non-EAG states 2.54 (2.47–2.61) 0.001 2.04 (1.97–2.11) 0.001 
Family size Large (above six) Reference  Reference 
Small (up to three) 1.36 (1.3–1.42) 0.001 0.86 (0.81–0.9) 0.001 
Medium (four to six) 1.22 (1.17–1.27) 0.001 0.93 (0.89–0.97) 0.002 
Levels of education of the HH head Illiterate Reference  Reference 
Literate without formal schooling 1.47 (1.28–1.69) 0.001 1.09 (0.94–1.27) 0.268 
Below primary and primary 1.46 (1.4–1.52) 0.001 1.10 (1.05–1.15) 0.001 
Upper primary 1.76 (1.68–1.83) 0.001 1.20 (1.14–1.26) 0.001 
Secondary 2.74 (2.63–2.86) 0.001 1.38 (1.32–1.45) 0.001 
Higher secondary and above 4.45 (4.28–4.62) 0.001 1.70 (1.62–1.78) 0.001 
Social group Scheduled caste (SC) Reference  Reference 
Scheduled tribe (ST) 1.21 (1.15–1.27) 0.001 1.16 (1.09–1.23) 0.001 
Other backward class (OBC) 1.31 (1.26–1.36) 0.001 1.07 (1.02–1.12) 0.003 
Others 2.55 (2.45–2.65) 0.001 1.31 (1.25–1.37) 0.001 
Religious group Muslim Reference  Reference 
Hindu 1.14 (1.1–1.18) 0.001 1.28 (1.22–1.34) 0.001 
Christians 1.49 (1.4–1.58) 0.001 1.39 (1.28–1.5) 0.001 
Others 2.68 (2.51–2.87) 0.001 2.17 (2.01–2.35) 0.001 
Usual Monthly Per Capita Expenditure Poorest Reference  Reference 
Poor 1.22 (1.17–1.28) 0.001 1.07 (1.01–1.13) 0.013 
Middle 1.46 (1.39–1.53) 0.001 1.13 (1.08–1.2) 0.001 
Rich 2.01 (1.92–2.1) 0.001 1.18 (1.12–1.25) 0.001 
Richest 3.57 (3.42–3.72) 0.001 1.4 (1.32–1.48) 0.001 
Access to the principal source of drinking water Community Reference  Reference 
Neighbours source 1.2 (1.1–1.3) 0.001 1.07 (0.97–1.18) 0.169 
Common use of HHs in building 2.32 (2.21–2.44) 0.001 1.14 (1.06–1.22) 0.001 
Exclusive use of HH 3.25 (3.14–3.36) 0.001 1.13 (1.07–1.19) 0.001 
Others 3.21 (3.04–3.38) 0.001 0.90 (0.84–0.97) 0.008 
Principal source of drinking water for household Public tap/stand pipe Reference  Reference 
Bottle and piped water into dwelling 4.44 (4.22–4.68) 0.001 1.50 (1.36–1.65) 0.001 
Piped water in plot and from neighbour 2.18 (2.06–2.31) 0.001 1.30 (1.17–1.44) 0.001 
Tube well/hand pump 1.01 (0.95–1.06) 0.842 1.10 (1.01–1.2) 0.028 
Well: protected and unprotected 1.85 (1.73–1.98) 0.001 1.40 (1.24–1.59) 0.001 
Other sourcesa 1.89 (1.75–2.05) 0.001 2.01 (1.78–2.28) 0.001 
Principal source of water for all household activities excluding drinking Public tap/stand pipe Reference  Reference 
Bottle and piped water into dwelling 4.42 (4.18–4.68) 0.001 1.34 (1.23–1.47) 0.001 
Piped water in plot and from neighbour 1.93 (1.82–2.06) 0.001 1.02 (0.92–1.12) 0.736 
Tube well/hand pump 1.13 (1.07–1.19) 0.001 1.02 (0.94–1.12) 0.608 
Well: protected and unprotected 1.79 (1.67–1.91) 0.001 1.00 (0.89–1.12) 0.997 
Other sourcesa 0.99 (0.92–1.06) 0.715 0.88 (0.8–0.97) 0.011 
Access of the household to bathroom No bathroom Reference  Reference 
Exclusive use of HH 5.74 (5.54–5.95) 0.001 1.83 (1.75–1.91) 0.001 
Common use of HHs in building 4.51 (4.28–4.75) 0.001 1.69 (1.59–1.8) 0.001 
Public/community use with or without payment and others 2.34 (1.9–2.88) 0.001 1.48 (1.18–1.86) 0.001 
Availability of water in or around the latrine used Not available Reference  Reference 
Water/water with mud, etc. 0.75 (0.68–0.83) 0.001 0.49 (0.44–0.54) 0.001 
Water with soap/detergent 4.55 (4.16–4.98) 0.001 2.41 (2.18–2.65) 0.001 
Whether received any benefits from government scheme during last 3 years (related to drinking water) Not received Reference  Reference 
Received 1.46 (1.27–1.67) 0.001 1.57 (1.34–1.83) 0.001 

Estimated by the author from NSSO 76th Round, Schedule 1.20.

Note: P-values at a 95% confidence interval, P-values < = 0.05 is considered as the significance level.

aOther sources include – tanker-truck: public and private; spring: protected and unprotected;rainwater collection, surface water: tank/pond and other surface water (river, dam, stream,canal, lake, etc.) and others (cart with small tank or drum, etc.).

People residing in the urban areas are 1.40 (adjusted odds ratio or AOR=1.40, 95% confidence interval or CI: 1.35–1.45) times more likely to wash hands before meals than those in rural areas. The non-EAG states are 2.04 (AOR=2.04, 95% CI: 1.97–2.11) times more likely to wash hands than EAG states. It is observed that medium (four to six members) and small (up to three members) families are 0.93 (AOR=0.93, 95% CI: 0.89–0.97) and 0.86 (AOR=0.86, 95% CI: 0.81–0.90) times less likely to wash hands than large families (above six members). The odds of washing hands with soap/detergent and water prior to meals increase with an increase in levels of education of a household head and those with higher secondary and above education are 1.70 (AOR=1.70, 95% CI: 1.62–1.78) times more likely than those who are illiterate. The odds of washing hands with soap/detergent and water prior to meals were 1.16 (AOR=1.16, 95% CI: 1.09–1.23), 1.07 (AOR=1.07, 95% CI: 1.02–1.12) and 1.31 (AOR=1.31, 95% CI: 1.25–1.37) times more likely among people belonging to scheduled tribes, other backward classes and others, respectively, than those who belong to scheduled castes. Hindus, Christians and people belonging to other religious groups are 1.28 (AOR=1.28, 95% CI: 1.22–1.34), 1.39 (AOR=1.39, 95% CI: 1.28–1.50) and 2.17 (AOR=2.17, 95% CI: 2.01–2.35) times, respectively, more likely to wash hands than Muslims. People belonging to poor, middle, rich and richest quintiles are 1.07 (AOR=1.07, 95% CI: 1.01–1.13), 1.13 (AOR=1.13, 95% 1.08–1.20), 1.18 (AOR=1.18, 95% CI: 1.12–1.25) and 1.4 (AOR=1.4, 95% CI: 1.32–1.48) times more likely, respectively, to wash hands than the poorest quintile. Households that have received benefits from government schemes for drinking water are 1.57 (AOR=1.57, 95% CI: 1.34–1.83) times more likely to wash hands with soap/detergent and water prior to meals.

Households for which the access to the principal source of drinking water is from the common use of households in building, exclusively for the households, are 1.14 (AOR=1.14, 95% CI: 1.06–1.18) and 1.13 (AOR=1.13, 95% CI: 1.07–1.19) times more likely, and other sources are 0.90 (AOR=0.90, 95%, CI: 0.84–0.97) times less likely to wash hands with soap/detergent and water, respectively, than those using water from community sources. Households that depend on bottled and piped water into dwelling, piped water in plot and from neighbour, protected and unprotected wells and other sources for the principal source of drinking water for household are 1.50 (AOR=1.50, 95% CI: 1.36–1.65), 1.30 (AOR=1.30, 95% CI: 1.17–1.44), 1.40 (AOR=1.40, 95% CI: 1.24–1.59) and 2.01 (AOR=2.01, 95% CI: 1.78–2.28) times, respectively, more likely to wash hands than who use water from public tap/stand pipe. Households that depend on bottled and piped water into dwellings for the principal source of water for all household activities excluding drinking are 1.34 (AOR=1.34, 95% CI: 1.23–1.47) times, respectively, more likely to wash hands before meals than those who use water from public taps/stand pipes.

Households that have their own bathrooms, use common bathrooms for all households in the building and use public or community bathrooms are 1.83 (AOR=1.83, 95% CI: 1.75–1.91), 1.69 (AOR=1.69, 95% CI: 1.59–1.80) and 1.48 (AOR=1.48, 95% CI: 1.18–1.86) times, respectively, more likely to wash their hands before meals than those with no bathrooms. Households that have water available along with mud/sand around the latrines are 0.49 (AOR=0.49, 95% CI: 0.44–0.54) times less likely and those households that have soap/detergent available with water around latrines are 2.41 (AOR=2.41, 95% CI: 2.18–2.65) times more likely to wash hands before meals than those who do not have water available around latrines.

Factors associated with handwashing with soap/detergent and water after defaecation

Table 5 presents the regression models predicting handwashing with soap/detergent and water post defaecation. Several factors influence whether a person uses soap/detergent and water for washing their hands after defaecation. Significant predictors include the place of residence, levels of education of a household head, EAG characteristics, social group, religion, monthly per capita expenditure, family size, access to the principal source of drinking water, the principal source of water for all household activities excluding drinking, the principal source of drinking water for the household, access of the household to bathroom, the availability of latrine facilities and the availability of water in or around the latrine used and whether the household has benefitted from government schemes related to sanitation.

Table 5

Factors associated with handwashing with soap/detergent and water post defaecation

Handwashing after defaecation
UORP-valuesAORP-values
Odds ratio (95% CI)P>zOdds ratio (95% CI)P>z
Place of residence Rural Reference  Reference 
Urban 3.50 (3.38–3.62) 0.001 1.5 (1.42–1.57) 0.001 
Empowered Action Group EAG states Reference  Reference 
Non-EAG states 0.92 (0.89–0.95) 0.001 0.54 (0.51–0.56) 0.001 
Family size Large (above six) Reference  Reference 
Small (up to three) 0.93 (0.89–0.98) 0.006 0.73 (0.69–0.78) 0.001 
Medium (four to six) 0.96 (0.92–1.00) 0.058 0.85 (0.8–0.9) 0.001 
Levels of education of the HH head Illiterate Reference  Reference 
Literate without formal schooling 1.45 (1.26–1.66) 0.001 1.27 (1.07–1.52) 0.008 
Below primary and primary 1.36 (1.31–1.42) 0.001 1.1 (1.05–1.16) 0.001 
Upper primary 1.81 (1.73–1.89) 0.001 1.27 (1.21–1.34) 0.001 
Secondary 2.55 (2.43–2.67) 0.001 1.34 (1.26–1.42) 0.001 
Higher sec. and above 4.88 (4.65–5.13) 0.001 1.68 (1.58–1.8) 0.001 
Social group Scheduled caste (SC) Reference  Reference 
Scheduled tribe (ST) 0.73 (0.69–0.76) 0.001 0.95 (0.89–1.01) 0.001 
Other backward class (OBC) 1.39 (1.33–1.44) 0.001 1.02 (0.97–1.07) 0.003 
Others 3.22 (2.10–2.24) 0.001 1.68 (1.58–1.78) 0.001 
Religious group Muslim Reference  Reference 
Hindu 0.75 (0.71–0.78) 0.001 0.92 (0.87–0.97) 0.001 
Christians 0.39 (0.37–0.42) 0.001 0.64 (0.58–0.7) 0.001 
Others 1.27 (1.16–1.38) 0.001 1.29 (1.15–1.44) 0.001 
Usual Monthly Per Capita Expenditure Poorest Reference  Reference 
Poor 1.22 (1.16–1.27) 0.001 1.04 (0.98–1.1) 0.205 
Middle 1.50 (1.43–1.57) 0.001 1.03 (0.98–1.09) 0.257 
Rich 2.10 (2.01–2.20) 0.001 1.1 (1.03–1.16) 0.002 
Richest 5.14 (4.89–5.40) 0.001 1.35 (1.26–1.45) 0.001 
Access to the principal source of drinking water Community Reference  Reference 
Neighbours source 1.16 (1.08–1.24) 0.001 1.09 (0.99–1.2) 0.075 
Common use of HHs in building 2.92 (2.78–3.08) 0.001 1.21 (1.12–1.31) 0.001 
Exclusive use of HH 3.40 (3.29–3.52) 0.001 1.34 (1.27–1.42) 0.001 
Others 1.82 (1.72–1.92) 0.001 0.89 (0.81–0.98) 0.021 
Principal source of drinking water for household Public tap/stand pipe Reference  Reference 
Bottle and piped water into dwelling 5.63 (5.34–5.93) 0.001 0.94 (0.84–1.05) 0.282 
Piped water in plot and from neighbour 2.36 (2.24–2.50) 0.001 0.82 (0.73–0.92) 0.001 
Tube well/hand pump 2.08 (1.98–2.17) 0.842 1.05 (0.95–1.15) 0.337 
Well: protected and unprotected 1.87 (1.75–1.99) 0.001 0.93 (0.81–1.06) 0.250 
Other sources 1.15 (1.06–1.24) 0.001 1.07 (0.94–1.23) 0.313 
Principal source of water for all household activities excluding drinking Public tap/stand pipe Reference  Reference 
Bottle and piped water into dwelling 7.62 (7.19–8.07) 0.001 1.97 (1.76–2.2) 0.001 
Piped water in plot and from neighbour 2.68 (2.53–2.85) 0.001 1.76 (1.57–1.97) 0.001 
Tube well/hand pump 2.71 (2.58–2.85) 0.001 1.47 (1.33–1.61) 0.001 
Well: protected and unprotected 2.37 (2.21–2.53) 0.001 1.44 (1.26–1.64) 0.001 
Other sources 1.16 (1.08–1.23) 0.715 1.08 (0.98–1.19) 0.133 
Access of the household to bathroom No bathroom Reference  Reference 
Exclusive use of HH 3.41 (3.31–3.51) 0.001 1.17 (1.12–1.23) 0.001 
Common use of HHs in building 3.65 (3.44–3.87) 0.001 1.12 (1.02–1.22) 0.019 
Public/community use with or without payment and others 1.29 (1.07–1.57) 0.001 0.99 (0.78–1.27) 0.952 
Access of the household to latrine No latrine Reference  Reference 
Exclusive use of HH 5.26 (5.08–5.44) 0.001 0.80 (0.68–0.95) 0.009 
Common use of HHs in building 5.78 (5.45–6.14) 0.001 1.21 (1.01–1.44) 0.043 
Public/community latrine with or without payment and others 4.60 (4.09–5.18) 0.001 2.79 (2.29–3.41) 0.001 
Availability of water in or around the latrine used Not available Reference  Reference 
Water/water with mud, etc. 0.28 (0.26–0.30) 0.001 0.24 (0.22–0.27) 0.001 
Water with soap/detergent 6.88 (6.33–7.48) 0.001 4.95 (4.52–5.42) 0.001 
Whether received any benefits from government scheme during last 3 years for sanitation Not received Reference  Reference 
Received 1.01 (0.91–1.12) 0.001 0.88 (0.77–1) 0.058 
Handwashing after defaecation
UORP-valuesAORP-values
Odds ratio (95% CI)P>zOdds ratio (95% CI)P>z
Place of residence Rural Reference  Reference 
Urban 3.50 (3.38–3.62) 0.001 1.5 (1.42–1.57) 0.001 
Empowered Action Group EAG states Reference  Reference 
Non-EAG states 0.92 (0.89–0.95) 0.001 0.54 (0.51–0.56) 0.001 
Family size Large (above six) Reference  Reference 
Small (up to three) 0.93 (0.89–0.98) 0.006 0.73 (0.69–0.78) 0.001 
Medium (four to six) 0.96 (0.92–1.00) 0.058 0.85 (0.8–0.9) 0.001 
Levels of education of the HH head Illiterate Reference  Reference 
Literate without formal schooling 1.45 (1.26–1.66) 0.001 1.27 (1.07–1.52) 0.008 
Below primary and primary 1.36 (1.31–1.42) 0.001 1.1 (1.05–1.16) 0.001 
Upper primary 1.81 (1.73–1.89) 0.001 1.27 (1.21–1.34) 0.001 
Secondary 2.55 (2.43–2.67) 0.001 1.34 (1.26–1.42) 0.001 
Higher sec. and above 4.88 (4.65–5.13) 0.001 1.68 (1.58–1.8) 0.001 
Social group Scheduled caste (SC) Reference  Reference 
Scheduled tribe (ST) 0.73 (0.69–0.76) 0.001 0.95 (0.89–1.01) 0.001 
Other backward class (OBC) 1.39 (1.33–1.44) 0.001 1.02 (0.97–1.07) 0.003 
Others 3.22 (2.10–2.24) 0.001 1.68 (1.58–1.78) 0.001 
Religious group Muslim Reference  Reference 
Hindu 0.75 (0.71–0.78) 0.001 0.92 (0.87–0.97) 0.001 
Christians 0.39 (0.37–0.42) 0.001 0.64 (0.58–0.7) 0.001 
Others 1.27 (1.16–1.38) 0.001 1.29 (1.15–1.44) 0.001 
Usual Monthly Per Capita Expenditure Poorest Reference  Reference 
Poor 1.22 (1.16–1.27) 0.001 1.04 (0.98–1.1) 0.205 
Middle 1.50 (1.43–1.57) 0.001 1.03 (0.98–1.09) 0.257 
Rich 2.10 (2.01–2.20) 0.001 1.1 (1.03–1.16) 0.002 
Richest 5.14 (4.89–5.40) 0.001 1.35 (1.26–1.45) 0.001 
Access to the principal source of drinking water Community Reference  Reference 
Neighbours source 1.16 (1.08–1.24) 0.001 1.09 (0.99–1.2) 0.075 
Common use of HHs in building 2.92 (2.78–3.08) 0.001 1.21 (1.12–1.31) 0.001 
Exclusive use of HH 3.40 (3.29–3.52) 0.001 1.34 (1.27–1.42) 0.001 
Others 1.82 (1.72–1.92) 0.001 0.89 (0.81–0.98) 0.021 
Principal source of drinking water for household Public tap/stand pipe Reference  Reference 
Bottle and piped water into dwelling 5.63 (5.34–5.93) 0.001 0.94 (0.84–1.05) 0.282 
Piped water in plot and from neighbour 2.36 (2.24–2.50) 0.001 0.82 (0.73–0.92) 0.001 
Tube well/hand pump 2.08 (1.98–2.17) 0.842 1.05 (0.95–1.15) 0.337 
Well: protected and unprotected 1.87 (1.75–1.99) 0.001 0.93 (0.81–1.06) 0.250 
Other sources 1.15 (1.06–1.24) 0.001 1.07 (0.94–1.23) 0.313 
Principal source of water for all household activities excluding drinking Public tap/stand pipe Reference  Reference 
Bottle and piped water into dwelling 7.62 (7.19–8.07) 0.001 1.97 (1.76–2.2) 0.001 
Piped water in plot and from neighbour 2.68 (2.53–2.85) 0.001 1.76 (1.57–1.97) 0.001 
Tube well/hand pump 2.71 (2.58–2.85) 0.001 1.47 (1.33–1.61) 0.001 
Well: protected and unprotected 2.37 (2.21–2.53) 0.001 1.44 (1.26–1.64) 0.001 
Other sources 1.16 (1.08–1.23) 0.715 1.08 (0.98–1.19) 0.133 
Access of the household to bathroom No bathroom Reference  Reference 
Exclusive use of HH 3.41 (3.31–3.51) 0.001 1.17 (1.12–1.23) 0.001 
Common use of HHs in building 3.65 (3.44–3.87) 0.001 1.12 (1.02–1.22) 0.019 
Public/community use with or without payment and others 1.29 (1.07–1.57) 0.001 0.99 (0.78–1.27) 0.952 
Access of the household to latrine No latrine Reference  Reference 
Exclusive use of HH 5.26 (5.08–5.44) 0.001 0.80 (0.68–0.95) 0.009 
Common use of HHs in building 5.78 (5.45–6.14) 0.001 1.21 (1.01–1.44) 0.043 
Public/community latrine with or without payment and others 4.60 (4.09–5.18) 0.001 2.79 (2.29–3.41) 0.001 
Availability of water in or around the latrine used Not available Reference  Reference 
Water/water with mud, etc. 0.28 (0.26–0.30) 0.001 0.24 (0.22–0.27) 0.001 
Water with soap/detergent 6.88 (6.33–7.48) 0.001 4.95 (4.52–5.42) 0.001 
Whether received any benefits from government scheme during last 3 years for sanitation Not received Reference  Reference 
Received 1.01 (0.91–1.12) 0.001 0.88 (0.77–1) 0.058 

Estimated by the author from NSSO 76th Round, Schedule 1.20.

Note: P-values at a 95% confidence interval, P-values <= 0.05 is considered as the significance level.

People residing in the urban areas are 1.50 (AOR=1.50, 95% CI: 1.42–1.57) times more likely to wash hands after defaecation than people in rural areas. The non-EAG states are 0.54 (AOR=0.54, 95% CI: 0.51–0.56) times less likely to wash hands than EAG states. Medium (four to six members) and small (upto three members) families are 0.85 (AOR=0.85, 95% CI: 0.80–0.90) and 0.73 (AOR=0.73, 95% CI: 0.69–0.78) times less likely to wash hands than large families (more than six members). The odds of washing hands with soap/detergent and water after defaecation were 1.68 (AOR=1.68, 95% CI: 1.58–1.80) times more likely among households with the education level of household head as higher secondary and above than those who are illiterate. The odds of washing hands with soap/detergent and water post defaecation were 0.95 (AOR=0.95, 95% CI: 0.89–1.01) times less and 1.02 (AOR=1.02, 95% CI: 0.97–1.07) and 1.68 (AOR=1.68, 95% CI: 1.58–1.80) times more likely among people belonging to scheduled tribes, other backward classes and others, respectively, than those who belong to scheduled castes. Hindus and Christians are 0.92 (AOR=0.92, 95% CI: 0.87–0.97) and 0.64 (AOR=0.64, 95% CI: 0.58–0.70) times less likely and people belonging to other religions are 1.29 (AOR=1.29, 95%, CI: 1.15–1.44) times, respectively, more likely to wash hands than Muslims. People belonging to rich and richest quintiles are 1.10 (AOR=1.10, 95% CI: 1.03–1.16) and 1.35 (AOR=1.35, 95% 1.26–1.45) times, respectively, more likely to wash hands than the poorest quintile. Households for whom the access to the principal source of drinking water is from common use of households in the building and is exclusively for the households are 1.21 (AOR=1.21, 95% CI: 1.12–1.31) and 1.34 (AOR=1.34, 95% CI: 1.27–1.42) times more likely to wash hands with soap/detergent and water, respectively, than those using water from community sources. Households that depend on bottled and piped water into dwelling, piped water in plot from neighbour, tube well/hand pump, protected and unprotected wells for the principal source of water for all household activities excluding drinking are 1.97 (AOR=1.97, 95% CI: 1.76–2.20), 1.76 (AOR=1.76, 95% CI: 1.57–1.97), 1.47 (AOR=1.47, 95% CI: 1.33–1.61) and 1.44 (AOR=1.44, 95% CI: 1.26–1.64) times more likely to wash hands than those who use water from public taps/stand pipes. Households that depend on piped water in plot and from neighbours for the principal source of drinking water are 0.82 (AOR=0.82, 95% CI: 0.73–0.92) times less likely to wash hands after defaecation than those who use water from public taps/stand pipes. Households that have their own bathrooms are 1.17 (AOR=1.17, 95% CI: 1.12–1.23) times more likely to wash their hands after defaecation than those with no bathrooms. Households that use public/community latrines with or without payment are 2.79 (AOR=2.79, 95% CI: 2.29–3.41) times more likely to wash hands after defaecation than those who have no access to latrines. Households that have water available along with mud/sand around the latrines and those households that have soap/detergent available with water around latrines are 0.24 (AOR=0.24, 95% CI: 0.22–0.27) and 4.95 (AOR=4.95, 95% CI: 4.52–5.42) times, respectively, more likely to wash hands after defaecation than those who do not have water available around latrines.

The WHO's preventive advisory guidelines related to hand hygiene to contain COVID-19 are not easy to follow by all sections of the population. Although water and sanitation occupy a place in Millennium Development Goals and Sustainable Development Goals, hygiene promotion and monitoring has received limited attention (Hirai et al. 2016). The differential handwashing practices across caste, class, consumption expenditure groups, regions and various other background characteristics reveal that although handwashing is a vital hygiene practice, it is far from being universal. The lack of adequate handwashing practices makes the population vulnerable to infections. The differential access to essential services across caste, ethnicity and classes is evident, and inclusive policies can help in the reduction of disparities (Desai & Dubey 2011; Kumar 2015). The EAG states are mostly in the lower phase of epidemiological transition and face health threats due to unsafe water, sanitation and handwashing (India State-Level Disease Burden Initiative Collaborators 2017). Handwashing practices are also towards the lower end of the spectrum in these states.

While it is understood that the dataset captures the picture before the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, it must be noted that this paper aims to identify the vulnerable sections of the society which are in the lower end of the spectrum of handwashing compliance. The dataset is large enough to provide a macro picture of the situation prior to the pandemic and gives a fair idea of the handwashing behaviour of the people captured through two crucial moments of the day. Information on handwashing during two daily crucial instances helps us to understand the behaviour of the people regarding handwashing practices. Although minor changes may have been implemented, large-scale changes in behaviour are unlikely to have occurred. If compliance is not available during these vital moments, how much compliance can be anticipated during the newly emerging disease, is a question. The awareness creation strategies by the government shall definitely have an impact on the handwashing behaviour. But the general characteristics might act as an impediment towards its implementation. Identifying these vulnerable sections will help policymakers decide which sections of the population might need more attention regarding planning and implementation of strategies to combat COVID-19.

CDC (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) recommends handwashing with soap and water whenever possible, but alcohol-based hand sanitizers may also be used (Kumar 2020). In both cases, awareness among people is important which can be effectively done through mass media. People are often aware of several health measures through mass media campaigns but are unable to practice them due to the lack of availability of proper facilities. Besides creating the awareness, the government also has to provide the facilities of water and soap through various avenues since not all people have access. Our study provides an insight that the beneficiaries of government schemes (related to drinking water) are more likely to wash hands regularly than others in the same category. Due to the localized nature of problems with the availability and accessibility of water and soap, steps can be taken at the disaggregated level for the creation of awareness as well as the distribution of soaps and sanitizers. Local volunteers may be directed to encourage people to practice frequent handwashing and distribute soaps, liquid soap and hand-sanitizing gel. These may also be provided in the PDS (Public Distribution System) shops along with basic food items, as mentioned in the Revamped PDS (1992). Regular supply of water in the localities has to be ensured to encourage people to practice handwashing.

Handwashing as an important preventive measure against infectious diseases needs more attention and monitoring. Handwashing practices are not universal across all sections of the population, making them vulnerable to infectious diseases. During the COVID-19 pandemic, it is crucial that every person, irrespective of their background, has access to basic facilities required to practice handwashing and maintain other hygiene practices. This paper helps to identify the vulnerable sections of the population who would require more attention in planning and implementing strategies to combat COVID-19 infections. Hand hygiene forms a part of the comprehensive package, which should be followed to prevent COVID-19 infections including the use of masks, physical distancing and following respiratory etiquette.

All relevant data are available from http://mospi.nic.in/unit-level-data-report-nss-76th-round-schedule-12-july-december-2018-drinking-water-sanitation.

1

In connection with this low achievement of some states in controlling population growth, health and educational progress, the Government of India had constituted EAG states in 2001 constituting eight states to provide them with better support for faster growth and sustainable development through self-empowered action. The states under the EAG Group include Bihar, Jharkhand, Uttar Pradesh, Uttaranchal, Rajasthan, Orissa, Madhya Pradesh and Chhattisgarh.

Aiello
A. E.
&
Larson
E. L.
2002
What is the evidence for a causal link between hygiene and infections?
The Lancet Infectious Diseases
2
,
103
110
.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S1473-3099(02)00268-2
.
Coignard
B.
,
Grandbastien
B.
,
Berrouane
Y.
,
Krembel
C.
,
Source Infection Control, Hospital Epidemiology, No Jul
Coignard
B.
&
Grandbastien
B.
1998
Handwashing quality: impact of a special program
.
Infection Control and Hospital Epidemiology
19
(
7
),
510
513
.
Curtis
V.
&
Cairncross
S.
2003
Effect of washing hands with soap on diarrhoea risk in the community: a systematic review
.
The Lancet Infectious Diseases
3
,
275
281
.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S1473-3099(03)00606-6
.
Curtis
V.
,
Cairncross
S.
&
Yonli
R.
2000
Review: domestic hygiene and diarrhoea – pinpointing the problem
.
Tropical Medicine and International Health
5
(
1
),
22
32
.
https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-3156.2000.00512.x
.
Deodhar
N. S.
2003
Epidemiological perspective of domestic and personal hygiene in India
.
International Journal of Environmental Health Research
13
,
47
56
.
https://doi.org/10.1080/0960312031000102796
.
Desai
S.
&
Dubey
A.
2011
Caste in 21st century India: competing narratives
.
Economic and Political Weekly
46
(
11
),
40
49
.
Esrey
S. A.
&
Habicht
J. P.
1986
Epidemiologic evidence for health benefits
.
Epidemiologic Reviews
8
,
117
128
.
Esrey
S. A.
,
Potash
J. B.
,
Roberts
L.
&
Shiff
C.
1991
Effects of improved water supply and sanitation on ascariasis, diarrhoea, dracunculiasis, hookworm infection, schistosomiasis, and trachoma
.
Bulletin of the World Health Organization
69
(
5
),
609
621
.
Government of India
2018
NSS 76th Round: Drinking Water, Sanitation, Hygiene and Housing Condition in India
.
Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation, National Statistical Office, New Delhi
,
India
.
Hirai
M.
,
Graham
J. P.
,
Mattson
K. D.
,
Kelsey
A.
,
Mukherji
S.
&
Cronin
A. A.
2016
Exploring determinants of handwashing with soap in Indonesia: a quantitative analysis
.
International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health
13
.
https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph13090868
.
Hoque
B. A.
2003
Handwashing practices and challenges in Bangladesh
.
International Journal of Environmental Health Research
13
,
S81
S87
.
https://doi.org/10.1080/0960312031000102831
.
Hoque
B. A.
,
Mahalanabis
D.
,
Alam
M. J.
&
Islam
M. S.
1995
Post-defecation handwashing in Bangladesh: practice and efficiency perspectives
.
Public Health
109
(
1
),
15
24
.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0033-3506(95)80071-9
.
India State-Level Disease Burden Initiative Collaborators
2017
Nations within a nation: variations in epidemiological transition across the states of India, 1990–2016 in the Global Burden of Disease Study
.
The Lancet
390
(
10111
),
2437
2460
.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(17)32804-0
.
Jumaa
P. A.
2005
Hand hygiene: simple and complex
.
International Journal of Infectious Diseases
9
,
3
14
.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijid.2004.05.005
.
Kumar
A.
2015
Disparities in access to basic amenities across caste, ethnicity and classes in rural and urban India
.
The Indian Economic Journal
62
(
4
),
1226
1250
.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0019466220150404
.
Kumar
R. P.
2020
You might be using hand sanitizers incorrectly. Here's how to use it effectively
.
Live Mint
.
Larson
E.
1988
A causal link between handwashing and risk of infection? Examination of the evidence
.
Infection Control and Hospital Epidemiology
9
(
1
),
28
36
.
https://doi.org/10.2307/30144131
.
Teare
L.
1999
Hand washing: a modest measure – with big effects
.
British Medical Journal
318
,
686
.
https://doi.org/10.1007/bf02737760
.
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Licence (CC BY 4.0), which permits copying, adaptation and redistribution, provided the original work is properly cited (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).